Ransom demands must stop.
Playbill just reported yet another theatre that is having financial difficulty. This time it’s Willows Theatre, in Martinez, California. Unfortunately, they are resorting to a tactic that, while (thankfully) rarely used, is very good at getting attention. In this case, it is claiming that unless they get $350,000 by November 1, they will be forced to close.
Sound familiar? Probably because you’ve already heard it from theatres such as About Face, House Theatre of Chicago, Paper Mill Playhouse, North Shore Music Theatre (which failed), Magic Theatre, and a few others just in the past 2 years. I’m calling it the Ransom Demand, and frankly, I’m sick of it.
No, I’m not advocating kicking a struggling theatre when it’s down. And I do feel for those involved with a theatre in financial trouble. But lets be honest: we’ve all known the economy was in the toilet for several years. Those first blindsided by sudden drops in funding, regardless of your opinion of their financial operations, at least had the excuse of being the first. “We-lost-our-two-biggest-donors-please-give-us-half-a-million-bucks-or-we-close-next-week” was understandable a few years back. Not anymore.
Here in Chicago, we had suffered for years with our public transit system not receiving adequate funding from the state. A few years back, it got so bad that the system was in danger of shutting down before the fiscal year was over because the state government hadn’t bothered to to find the funding it had promised at the beginning of the year. At the last second, the state “bailed out” the public transit with exactly enough money to complete the year. But this was just a one time infusion: it didn’t fix the fact that the funding had not changed in nearly 20 years. So the next year, once again, the transit system was on the brink of shutting down. Again the state offered a “bail out”, but that would not solve the problem. No one wanted to simply be thrown a new bucket every year, they wanted the leaks patched and the boat upgraded. Finally a new funding plan was approved, and the bail-outs could stop. (granted, the plan didn’t work out as well as hoped, due to interference from the now impeached Governor, as well as the economy causing fewer tax revenues than expected. But at least the plan was upgraded from the antique one of the past). Continuing on as usual and expecting to be bailed-out at the last second is no way to sail a leaky ship, and no way to continue to get donors to trust you with their cash.
It is nearing the end of 2009, and it is the beginning of the new show season for most theatre companies. Any company that has not bothered to look at its finances and start patching the leaks in the last few years will most likely not be able to stay afloat simply due to a sudden, one-time cash infusion now. The warnings have all been there. You would have to be blind, and deaf, not to notice them. I understand that sometimes things don’t play out the way they were planned, and sometimes emergency action must be taken. But lets have Willows Theatre be the last one to ask for a ransom to save itself.
There have been years of warnings, and watching other theatres try the same tactic. Any theatre resorting to ransoming itself risks creating an unsympathetic hostage.
Hudson & Gaines
With all due respect, you’ve never run a theatre company, so you’re basing this completely on circumstantial evidence.
I must say that on the surface your frustration is sound and shared by many of us. But your analysis of why the company is in its current state is based on a total ignorance of what actually occurred. I stayed after the curtain at a recent performance of HAIR at the Willows where Richard Elliott, the Artistic Director, very honestly and frankly laid out the path to why they are in their current state. I will not reiterate it here, but suffice it to say it is due to a combination of reasons which far transcend not being “bothered to look at its finances and start patching the leaks in the last few years”. Trust me, those leaks were patched as best they could be. It is the economy tanking combined with unforseeable construction overrruns, combined with some admitted mistakes in projected audience buy-in to a new performance venue, combined with several other factors.
And the difference between this sort of appeal and a “ransom demand” is that if you don’t want the company to remain, you don’t have to do anything. No kidnapped person will be killed. Your metaphor is catchy but lacks all nuance and understanding of the myriad reasons for the request.
The Willows being late to the party just means that they exhausted even more avenues in an attempt to survive. They should be applauded for holding out longer!
I don’t know Willow’s particular story as to how they got into this position. Every theatre has its own. My issue is simply the Ransom Demand tactic, and the fact that it is ever needed.
Unless a theatre has been robbed, either by force or by embezzlement, I do not see how they could be in a state to need to call for any amount “in 60 days or else we close.” Why not make an appeal 6 months in advance? How do you not know until 60 days prior? Was there a fire? A flood? Did the stage collapse? No? Just running out of money is not something that just suddenly happens.
And yes, it is holding the theatre hostage. “If you don’t want the theatre to remain, you don’t have to do anything.” That’s a threat. My guess is that most people want the theatre to remain, but not all are able to help at the last second. Maybe they are tapped out from donating in the past, even earlier this year.
I have no ill will toward Willows. I am sorry they are in the predicament they are in, and I hope they pull themselves out of it. I don’t want to see any theatre close. But I also think the Ransom Demand tactic has run it’s course with theatres that have simply had funding problems, and not a sudden catastrophe that required much of the budget to fix. “Help keep us open” requests need to be made sooner than 60 days before the closing date. We should want to help because we like the theatre, not because we are guilt-tripped into it.
I agree that being guilt-tripped into funding sucks as a method. I would more say that it sucks that it has come to that. OF COURSE the theater has been putting out the appeals for help for waaaaaaay longer than a sixty day emergency appeal. That’s all theaters do day in day out. That is what the position of development director is all about. The reason companies are resorting to the ransom demand is that it gets attention. It shakes people out of the “maybe someday I should get around to donating” mode. The amount of press the Willows has gotten for this is oodles more than they have gotten for any show or event or commnunity program or fabulous thing they do.
I know you don’t harbor ill will towards the Willows. Unfortunately, since you wrote about them specifically, there is the possibility that your criticism will hurt their chances at raising the needed funds. Probably not, I guess, since this column is read by theater professionals, not the general public upon who we are relying to bail out the theaters in question.
I think we are in basic agreement. We don’t like that they are doing this. The difference is that I see it as necessary (sadly) and you see it as irresponsible (I think, that is of course my interpretation of your words). Since I know the story, I don’t see it as irresponsible but tragic.
Many additional comments over at Carnegie Mellon’s “News from the Real World” blog, most of them (I assume) by students.
http://cmuptm.blogspot.com/2009/09/ransom-demands-must-stop.html
When a company is having financial issues, is it not general fiscal practice to consider proposing a smaller season, make mid-season changes to shows with perhaps, cheaper production requirements, that could save money and make money?
Get better quality on the boards, cut expenses.
Holding out? They could have made their problems known a year ago…
But they did not. Bad behaviour….
This theatre has an agreement with AEA. Could they have done smaller cast shows with actual professional actors rather than insisting on Large cast, mostly non-union performers? Sure…
But they did not.
(also didn’t they also break their agreement with AEA by going non union with Mame?)
So, what exactly is the business principles of this company? Sounds very sketchy…. and the city of Martinez has helped them and it’s been wasted…..
I’m sorry, but the Willows boat has been leaking water for well over 2 years now, a fiscally responsible, truthful company would have made huge adjustments in season planning. Not insist on larger, bigger shows…and breaking agreements. But not this company…
The plea by the artistic director comes in the wake of poor choices and judgement and also…. living beyond their means… and income. And squandering this company is shameful as it hurts actors locally who actually make this a profession…..it hurts vendors….it hurts the community…but bad businesses are bad businesses….
Time to come clean, tell the truth about things and then maybe someone may come consider helping… right now… there’s no proof that anything will change, old habits die hard….
Generally a company in fiscal crisis, changes it’s programming, perhaps cancels shows. Finds smaller cast properties and hires the best professional actors.
The Willows was bailed out last fall, by both the City of Martinez and by AEA agreeing to reduce their minimums, even after the willows broke their previous agreement with AEA by casting Mame entirely non union.
In this fiscal crisis of …last year….. the Willows did not alter their season one bit. Nor did they opt for small cast shows with those professionals to help bank, and get them out of the red.
I find that a fiscally irrisponsible behavior.
Now, this year, same thing…large shows..big cast, royalties must be outrageous…. So…. I’m sorry, I’m not buying this plea, and not from this company and I’m certain the community is sensing the same…especially the folks in Martinez because I’m not certain the money is coming in.
Be truthful, open the books and start behaving like a responsible business…& I’m sorry…start doing good work.
The audiences will respond to good work, but I’ve not seen much in the past 5 or 6 years. Not on that stage…